marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Peter Parker (Earth-199999)
Too Soon? Should we wait until the release of the film? We know he's going to be in the film. Just curious. - Nio :Yes. It's policy to wait until the movie comes out before making pages. Nurdboy42 (talk) 17:45, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :: Ah, my apologies. - Nio :: I've removed the deletion template for the moment. Spider-Man has previously been mentioned as existing in the MCU in Black Widow: Forever Red, so having a page may not be against policy at this point. I'll update this accordingly. --Spencerz (talk) 19:23, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :::Has that book been 100%, unambiguously confirmed to be set in the MCU? Nurdboy42 (talk) 19:25, March 11, 2016 (UTC) ::::That's what I'm looking into. The admins discussed it a while back, but I can't find the thread. The decision on Keep or Delete will be decided by the end of the day though. --Spencerz (talk) 19:30, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :::::I think there's no reason for keeping this page. His Ant-Man mention was rather vague, and Black Widow: Forever Red's canonicity can be argued. Unless there's a valid reason for keeping this page (which doesn't even have history text), I think it would be better to delete it by the end of the day. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:07, March 13, 2016 (UTC) :::::: I don't see the point in not keeping this page, just leave it here, I mean Spider-Man is in the MCU, We got his look in Civil War, why not just keep the page, so we don't have to come back and edit it later I mean the film is like 1-2 months away, so why not just keep the page here, so we don't have to go through the entire process of adding it later. --rockman (talk) 13:14, March 13, 2016 (UTC) :::::: I agree with you, ADour. WAAAAY to early to have this page. We know nothing about this version of Spider-Man to justify having it. We have the MCU Doctor Strange page because 1) he was directly and unambiguously referenced in an MCU product (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), and 2) we actually know things about him (that come from the movie, not producer/director/actor comments). The same cannot be said for Spider-Man. Nurdboy42 (talk) 19:30, March 13, 2016 (UTC) :::::::rockman: The entire process of adding it later? The page is practically empty, it's a stub. The process of recreating this page to its current state would take two minutes top. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:33, March 13, 2016 (UTC) :::::I do not recall a mention in Ant-Man (which should say something), and while Annabell and I seem to agree that Forever Red should be treated as canon (as stated by the author) until proven otherwise, I'm not overly attached to the page. If no one can even produce some context to the Forever Red mention, the page should be squashed. --Spencerz (talk) 20:55, March 13, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I seem to be the only person on the wiki who has actually read BW:FR, so I'd just like to add that Spider-Man's mention in the book is very off-hand and makes him sound like an already established hero, which he has not so far been unless they are going to do some major retconning in the movie. I should be getting my hands on another copy of the book in the next couple days (I unfortunately no longer have mine) so I can provide the exact quote mentioning him. Also, can we get a reminder of what exactly his mention in Ant-Man was? --Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 04:34, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :::::::“We have a guy who can jump. A guy who can swing. A guy who can crawl up walls.” Nurdboy42 (talk) 04:57, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Also, here are the two discussions about whether or not BW:FR is canon.--Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 05:12, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::Okay, here is the Black Widow: Forever Red quote: :::::"Oksana laughed. 'This is America, Ava. Some people fly around in iron suits. Some climb buildings like spiders. Others pound cities into plaster with giant green fists or alien hammers. How do you know what’s real anymore, myshka?'" Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 00:44, March 15, 2016 (UTC) Questions about Forever Red's canon aside, those two mentions are both (intentionally) vague; if someone wanted to, you could argue that those mentions allude to an as-of-yet unseen Ben Reily, or Jessica Drew. I'll wait for another admin to confirm, but this page will likely be deleted. --Spencerz (talk) 01:05, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :I agree with the deletion of this page, specially considering it was created due to Spider-Man's appearance in Captain America: Civil War, not the vague references. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 01:13, March 15, 2016 (UTC) ::I support the deletion of this article; however, maintain that it's incredibly disrespectful to not take Margaret Stohl at her word compared to the way we treat every other Marvel writer, and as such Black Widow: Forever Red should be considered canon, just like numerous examples of Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins such as comics and video games, until such time as it is proven contradictory by the actual films. -- Annabell (talk) 02:06, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :::I feel this discussion has been somewhat exhausted at this point but: Black Widow: Forever Red is contradictory to The Avengers, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, Iron Man 3, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Ant-Man in that Natasha is not at all surprised that Coulson is still alive and S.H.I.E.L.D. still exists in the form it did pre-Captain America: the Winter Soldier, so if we treat BW:FR as fully canon (as Stohl says it is), since the book was published after the release of all of the movies, (although there have been Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes released since) then the book is retconning all events related to the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Coulson's "death." It simply doesn't make sense. I'd say that it simply takes place before the Avengers, but the Avengers are canon as a team within the book. --Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 03:37, March 15, 2016 (UTC) Keep or Delete So what's the deal with this page? Are we keeping it or deleting it? Nurdboy42 (talk) 05:31, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :Keeping, because if we delete it, someone will recreat it again, and the deleting/recreating cycle will keep happening again, and again, and again... :--The Many-Angled One (talk) 05:47, March 22, 2016 (UTC) ::We will delete it each time someone wants to recreate it then. We should not give in to people that do not know or respect our policies. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 06:38, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :::I vote protect it as a blank page. -- Annabell (talk) 07:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::That's a good alternative. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 18:29, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :::::I like Annabell's idea. Maybe we could include some sort of redirect so people can't come across the page and wonder why it's blank. - LoveWaffle (talk) 04:14, March 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Maybe just redirect to the generic Spider-Man page? --Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 04:40, March 23, 2016 (UTC) :::::::I've added a disclaimer to explain why the article is presently blank. Hopefully people will read and abide by the request both here and on other future characters. -- Annabell (talk) 00:06, March 26, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Why not just delete it and protect the article from creation until May 6? SeanWheeler (talk) 16:50, March 26, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::Because it's impossible to protect a page that doesn't exist. The best way to do this is to leave the page blank and protect it. Or to delete it every time somebody creates it. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:52, March 26, 2016 (UTC) :::Really? You can't protect a red link? I've seen non-existing pages being protected on other wikis. Bowser Jr. was protected from creation on the Sonic Wiki before his second appearance in the Olympics. Well if you can't protect a non-existent page, better to unlink Spider-Man from the Civil War movie page and post a notice on upcoming movies such as Civil War to tell people to not create articles of subjects that make their debut in upcoming products. In fact, you can make an announcement for that in the forums too. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:39, March 26, 2016 (UTC) ::::That was already done and people kept re-making this page (and other pages) anyway. The created, but blank and protected solution is definite and impossible to be ignored by ignorant users. Hufflepuffgirl28 (talk) 23:46, March 26, 2016 (UTC) :::::@SeanWheeler: When protecting "pages that don't exist" we refer to that as protecting "titles" (the currently on the Marvel Database). The notice page is a suitable alternative solution in this case though, especially seeing as the post release movie edits are now less than a month away. -- WarBlade (talk) 11:46, March 27, 2016 (UTC) Release dates/Editing Correlation The movie has already been released in most countries, perhaps is time to make the article. - :The spoiler policy is currently under discussion, but it's worth noting that the film will not be released in China, India, and North America for another week yet. -- Annabell (talk) 10:06, April 29, 2016 (UTC) ::But the movie is already released in many markets since yesterday, so the whole "Character has not yet appeared in canon / Unreleased content" doesn't really stand. -- Ryo205 00:56, April 30, 2016 (UTC) :::Your opinion is noted, but as I said, what constitutes "released" is currently being discussed, since the film is presently still unreleased content for more than half of the world's population. -- Annabell (talk) 02:57, April 30, 2016 (UTC) -Uh, so is the USA the ultimate release date, May 6th, in which we can begin to build up this article? I live in Australia and I'm about to see the movie a second time, but does the US take priority when it comes to editing this page? And consequently, any other future releases for that matter?Yondu73 (talk) 05:46, April 30, 2016 (UTC) Discussion about editing this page can be found from Thread:910636. Please continue discussion there as this affects to lot of other pages also. —Mrkermit (talk) 08:39, April 30, 2016 (UTC) Edit Requests Sorry if some of these seem nitpicky. "Resolving to use his abilities to help those in need, he developed his own web fluid and web shooters, and took on the costumed identity of Spider-Man to fight crime at the street level." I don't think the last comma is needed, I think it can just be "web shooters and took on (rest of sentence)." "There is footage of him stopping moving at 40 mph before hefting it aloft." This sentence should be "There is footage of him stopping a car moving at 40 mph before hefting it aloft." "Spider-Man possesses denser bones and muscle tissue, that allows him to survive great impacts; He was unaffected when he fell from the height of several stories." That semi-colon should not be there. It should be a period. "Spider-Man is able to exert himself much longer than normal humans, without tiring." That comma doesn't need to be there either. "to his advantage in a battle as Spider-Man, and can also very quickly come up with witty but incredibly annoying quips, much to the frustration of his opponents." This should be changed to "to his advantage in a battle as Spider-Man. He can also (rest of sentence)." LordXcano (talk) 23:33, October 16, 2016 (UTC) :Thanks for the suggestions, they have been applied to the page. --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:12, October 17, 2016 (UTC) Spider-Geddon Why no mention of his appearance in such a large-scale Marvel Multiverse event within the "History" section? Just curious as TASM's Peter Parker has it :) --Juraj103 (talk) 15:29, May 8, 2019 (UTC) : *bump* -- ::We're a wiki, it's simply a case of nobody yet adding properly referenced history text for peer review. -- Annabell (talk) 16:49, May 10, 2019 (UTC) I noticed That Someone Put this version of peter parker under the category of british. The chracter is not british but the actor is. i suggest this be removed.--Shiore2006 (talk) 02:58, July 4, 2019 (UTC)shiore2006 Mutli Vs Bi So a little bit ago (you can see the edit on the history) I put the category "Multilingual", and someone said this was incorrect, he's only bilingual. Doesn't bilingual fall into multilingual? ScoobyScrooge (talk) 17:31, August 6, 2019 (UTC) :Multilingualism refers to the ability to speak several or many languages. Some dictionaries specifically make use of "more than two." --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:26, August 6, 2019 (UTC) :: According to Merriam-Webster: 1: of, having, or expressed in several languages or 2: using or able to use several languages especially with equal fluency. ScoobyScrooge (talk) 23:58, August 6, 2019 (UTC)